Welcome to the second article in this amazing series which looks at what you can do to try to extract money from a stubborn business debtor.

In the first article I looked at the potential benefits and detriments of issuing a County Court Claim.  This time I will take a step back and look at what you could do prior to going to Court with your completed forms and a large cheque for the ever-growing Court fee. You can read this article here.

I am sure many of you may be aware already that as of the 1st October 2015 the Bankruptcy Limit has increased to £5,000 whilst a Winding up Order remains the same at £750.00.

The limit debtor's can apply for a Debt Relief Order has also been increased from £15,000 to £20,000.

The Regulator has updated its guidance on assessing and monitoring the employer covenant in order to help trustees apply the defined benefit funding code of practice (“the Code”).

The guidance is intended to identify good practice for trustees in:

While there are smart ways to avoid the debt collection process, sometimes you have to hire a professional. After all, you have your business to run and dealing with delinquent accounts can be draining on your resources, time and patience. That said, not every debt collection specialist is created equal and not every company will be right for your unique business. Here are a few things you should consider when selecting a partner in the process.

Do the Research

This article provides an essential update for insolvency practitioners on insolvency changes in 2015 and the proposed changes in 2016.

2015 Changes                

The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015

In recent times, the legal profession has undergone widespread changes at the bequest of previous governments. The most draconian measures have been in relation to the expense of professional services. These include a budgeting and costs management process which is the subject of judicial approval. In essence, service provider’s fees and expenses are estimated and capped in advance of them being incurred.

The Pension Protection Fund (PPF) has issued a guidance note on Insolvency Practitioner remuneration which will apply where the insolvent company has a Defined Benefit Pension Scheme. The guidance note applies to pre and post appointment work.

The Guidance Note can be found here.

The Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in the case of The Trustees of Olympic Airlines SA Pension and Life Assurance Scheme –v- Olympic Airlines SA. Pitmans’ Trustee company, PTL, were the Appellants.

The question at issue was what connection must a foreign company, that has its Centre of Main Interests (COMI) in another EU country, have within the United Kingdom, to entitle an English Court to wind it up.

In the recent decision of Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch) the High Court held that a Bankrupt’s unexercised rights to draw his pension did not represent income to which the Bankrupt was entitled within the meaning of section 310(7) of the Insolvency Act 1986 and so refused to make an Income Payments Order. This contradicted the controversial decision in Raithatha v Williamson [2012] EWHC 909 (Ch) and has created uncertainty as to which is the correct position. The Horton case is being appealed.

The High Court has held that a bankrupt’s unexercised rights to draw his pension did not represent income to which the bankrupt was entitled and so refused to make an income payments order, contradicting the controversial decision in Raithatha v Williamson which held that a bankrupt’s right to draw income from a personal pension may be subject to an income payments order even if the individual has yet to draw his pension.

Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch)